I’ve been a loyal Dittohead since 1990 when I joined the military. I’ve been a member of Rush 24/7 from the beginning. I stuck by Rush through thick & thin, even as his voice modulation suffered as a result of his deafness. He has only two tones now, his strained booming bass and his screeching squeak when he tries to emphasize a point (and no, I’m not referring to his New Castrati impersonation). The screeching squeak is becoming more common, but I can tolerate it if he keeps the content of the show up to EIB standards.

Lately, Rush seems to be phoning it in, by riffing on whatever Drudge headline is currently hot, and recycling the old Limbaugh standard responses to leftist news. But I can grit my teeth and tolerate this, if he sticks to conservative principles.

Until this past June, I was always certain that Rush followed his convictions & principles wherever they led, and that he wasn’t the type of host who would abandon his principles to chase ratings. I can no longer believe that, because the evidence is overwhelming that Rush has tossed the conservative principles in which he once believed.

I’m fed up with Rush constantly pimping Donald Trump, the progressive huckster masquerading as a conservative. Rush is obviously chasing ratings, since The Donald draws eyes and ears no matter where he appears. Rush’s audience has been dropping and with it his advertising revenue, so I understand the temptation. It must be easy to fluff the numbers by appealing to the temporary mob of idiot Trumpkins who uncritically cheer everything Trump-related. It’s a lucrative proposition in the short run, as long as you ignore the risk of driving away loyal long-term listeners like me. Lord knows, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Ann Coulter have succumbed to the temptation. I had hoped that Rush was made of sterner stuff, and would find a way to appeal to modern conservatives in an era with declining AM radio listenership.

No more. My hopes have finally evaporated and I’ve had enough. Rush has driven me away, and I’m not coming back after the Trump bubble finally pops and the idiot Trumpkins wander off to chase the next shiny object. No “return to conservatism” that Rush mounts will ever be convincing. He sold out, so let him enjoy retirement with his last thirty pieces of Trumpkin silver.

Like most of you, I’m sick and tired of the Bushes and Clintons. It’s long past time to rein in families like theirs before our political system turns completely hereditary.

To that end, the U.S. Constitution will have to be amended. Here’s my proposal:

AMENDMENT ___

SECTION 1: No person shall be eligible to hold the offices of President or Vice President if that person’s spouse, former spouse, natural parent, adoptive parent, step-parent, sibling, half-sibling, or adopted sibling has previously held either office.

SECTION 2: No person who has ever held the office of President shall be eligible to hold any subsequent public office at the federal level.

SECTION 3: Except for an Associate Justice being appointed to the office of Chief Justice, no person appointed to the Supreme Court shall be eligible to hold any subsequent public office at the federal level.

This should hopefully prevent members of the Obama, Bush, or Clinton families from constantly inflicting themselves upon us.

You’ve no doubt heard the well-known story of the first Thanksgiving in Plymouth, Massachusetts. But did you know that what you’ve heard is drastically inaccurate?

According to the writings of William Bradford, the colony’s first governor, the hardships and near-starvation of the entire population occurred because the colonists turned their backs on capitalism. They believed the old lie that an economy based on the concept of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” can actually work. They instituted a socialist system, and found out that socialism causes disaster:

The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

For more on the lessons the pilgrims learned, see this piece by Rick Williams, Jr.

In a wide-ranging radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, presumptive Republican presidential candidate addressed several aspects of the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. When the shooting of Mike Brown came up, Carson stuck his foot in his mouth on the subject of guns for at least the third time this year (boldface emphasis below is mine):

HH: Now you say “I don’t think that the police officer did anything wrong.” So you have reviewed and have come to the conclusion that the officer in fact should not have been charged with anything?

BC: Yeah, he had every right to protect his life. But I do think that there are probably other techniques that could have been used.

HH: All right, now if there were other techniques that could have been used, doesn’t that suggest he did something wrong?

BC: No, that suggests that he perhaps has not had the maximum training.

HH: Okay.

BC: You know, for instance, in a lot of places, police officers aren’t even allowed to go into the more dangerous areas by themselves. They’re always paired. Or you know, people use tasers, people learn how to shoot people in the legs to stop them from charging, things of that nature. And I seriously doubt that he’d been given that information.

This is just plain ignorant. No law enforcement agency anywhere in America, whether it’s a federal, state, or local agency, trains its officers to aim for a target’s legs. All of them train their officers to aim for the target’s torso.

Dr. Carson is woefully ignorant about deadly force encounters, about the laws of self defense, and about the mechanics of marksmanship, but educating himself would be relatively simple for a man as intelligent as he is. He can start at BearingArms.com and branch out from there.

“Aiming for the legs or arms” is a foolish myth that belongs only in Hollywood.

—-

For a previous unforced “foot bullet” from Dr. Carson on the subject of guns, see his interview with Dana Loesch, in which he tries to walk back a previous ignorant statement in an interview with Glenn Beck.

The only sure way to fix it is via an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Here’s one that should do the trick:

AMENDMENT __

SECTION 1: With the exception of unincorporated Territories, Indian lands, and the District of Columbia, the United States shall not own any more than ten percent of the total land area of the United States, nor shall it own more than twenty percent of the total land area within any State or Territory. The United States shall designate lands that it owns beyond these limits as Excess Federal Lands.

SECTION 2: The United States shall begin selling all Excess Federal Lands by public auction no later than one year after the ratification date of this Amendment, and the United States shall divest itself of all Excess Federal Lands no later than ten years after the ratification date of this Amendment. The United States shall make a good faith effort to auction all Excess Federal Lands, and all such auctions shall be open to all individual citizens of the United States exclusively. The laws and regulations of the States and the Territories shall govern the conduct of auctions of Excess Federal Lands within their borders. During this auction period the United States shall not divest itself of Excess Federal Lands by any method other than by public auction. All Excess Federal Lands that remain unsold ten years after the ratification date of this Amendment shall become the property of their respective States or Territories.

SECTION 3: Any acquisition by the United States of new lands that would otherwise violate Section 1 of this Amendment shall first be offset by divesting an equal or greater amount of lands in accordance with the auction procedures in Section 2. If such auctions fail to sell enough land to comply with Section 1, the United States shall divest the remaining excess lands by transferring ownership to their respective States or Territories.

After the new Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced out last week over his $1000 donation in 2008 to a group protecting marriage agains erosion by same sex “marriage,” users of the Mozilla’s web browser Firefox reacted in outrage by removing it from their computers and web-enabled devices. The firestorm of anger at Mozilla that kicked off late last week kept burning through the weekend, according to the organization’s own stats. Here are the feedback trends for the last 90 days, with “sad” comments in red and “happy” comments in green:

Here’s a closer look at the last seven days:

If this user revolt maintains momentum through this week, Mozilla may face a serious drop in its share of the very competitive web browser and e-mail market. I truly hope the backlash against Soviet-like mob action continues long enough to permanently cripple Mozilla. Corporate boards need to learn that caving in to a virtual lynch mob carries too high a price to bear.

So far, Mozilla’s strategy seems to be to hunker down and hope the firestorm fizzles. Don’t let it happen. Uninstall Mozilla products and let them know why.

I’m reaching out to the offices of Representative Bob Gibbs (R-OH) to see if he’s taken a stance on the amnesty scam floated by the GOP leadership this week. So far, no definitive response … which concerns me. He’s supposedly sympathetic to the conservative base, but his silence suggests possible squishiness.

Ace might have figured it out: politics is the MacGuffin in the heroic Obama “movie” that all of his mindless drones are watching. It doesn’t matter what the MacGuffin actually is. It’s just a plot device, something for the dreamy hero to pursue while the evil villains — conservatives, in this case — try to keep it from him.

You’ve no doubt heard the well-known story of the first Thanksgiving in Plymouth, Massachusetts. But did you know that what you’ve heard is drastically inaccurate?

According to the writings of William Bradford, the colony’s first governor, the hardships and near-starvation of the entire population occurred because the colonists turned their backs on capitalism. They believed the old lie that an economy based on the concept of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” can actually work. They instituted a socialist system, and found out that socialism causes disaster:

The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

For more on the lessons the pilgrims learned, see this piece by Rick Williams, Jr.

These are the geniuses to whom you’re entrusting your private health information, America. They promise to keep it secure. Pinky swear. Just like the prices for health insurance they’re trying to keep behind a login wall on Healthcare.gov so that nobody can see every available plan in America all at once until they’ve given up their private information … and … wait, what? They did what? Really??

If the President (and his Senate) fail to reach a deal on raising the debt ceiling on October 17th, will the federal government go into default? Only if Barack Obama wants it to, because it’s entirely in his hands.

Monthly revenue can easily cover the amount America must spend to service its debt. On top of that, monthly revenue can keep Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid fully funded — even at the bloated and obscenely wasteful levels at which those programs currently operate. In fact, America can even maintain all of its defense spending at current levels too.

What will happen on the 17th if no deal is reached? The federal government will be legally required to stop borrowing more money and adding to the debt.

Look at it this way. If you earn $5000 in salary every month, but you max out your credit cards by spending $6000 every month, the bank will eventually refuse to bump up your credit limit any further. When that happens, you can respond in several ways. You can cut your spending by $1000 and stay forever at the limit. You can cut spending by more than $1000 and start paying off your debt. Or you can refuse to cut your spending by at least $1000, and you’ll be unable to make payments on your debt. In other words, you can choose to go into default. If the only thing keeping you from cutting your spending is your fondness for steak, single malt scotch, Italian shoes, fast cars, and weekends in Vegas … the blame for your default is 100% yours.

Sound familiar?

If the Obama Administration announces that they’ll stop making interest payments on the national debt on October 17th, then they’ve voluntarily chosen that course of action. Nothing will force them into it.

There’s plenty of revenue coming in every month to keep America from defaulting on the debt. We do not have a revenue problem. We. Have. A. Spending. Problem.